REP. ROBERT GOODLATTE (R-VA): Mr. Chairman, this is a somber
occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is
the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow
the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this
nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation
should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law.
Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law,
including the chief executive

Since it is the rule of law that guides us, we must ask ourselves
what happens to our nation if the rule of law is ignored, cheapened or
violated, especially at the highest level of government. Consider the
words of former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who was
particularly insightful on this point. "In a government of laws, the
existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe
the law scrupulously. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole
people by its example. If government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto
himself."

Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves what our failure to uphold
the rule of law will say to the nation, and most especially to our
children, who must trust us to leave them a civilized nation where
justice is respected.

The charges against the president include perjury, obstruction of
justice, and abuse of power. These are serious charges deserving
serious consideration.

The question before the committee is whether the president
intentionally misled our judicial system and the American people as
part of a calculated, ongoing effort to conceal the facts and the
truth and to deny an average citizen her day in court in a sexual
harassment lawsuit, and did the president betray the public trust by
perjuring himself before a federal grand jury and obstructing justice?
Let's take a minute to examine the facts of this case.

On January 17, 1998, the president swore to tell the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth in a deposition given before a
federal district judge. The president testified that he did not know
that his personal friend Vernon Jordan had met with Monica Lewinsky, a
federal employee, a subordinate and a witness in the Jones case in
which the president was named as a defendant, and talked about the
case. The evidence before the committee clearly indicates that the
president lied under oath. The president testified that he did not
recall being alone with Miss Lewinsky; the evidence before the
committee clearly indicates that the president lied under oath.

On August 17, 1998, seven months after his deposition in the
Jones case, the president swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth before the federal grand jury. The president
testified that he did not allow his attorney to claim that his
affidavit in the civil case was true when he knew it was false. The
evidence before the committee clearly indicates that the president
lied under oath. The president also testified before the grand jury
that he did not give false testimony in his deposition in the Jones
case. The evidence before the committee clearly indicates that the
president lied under oath.

While the president's lawyers have denied the facts against him,
they have not -- because they apparently cannot -- provide new
evidence that rebuts those facts. Many of the legal scholars
testifying at the request of the president have admitted that the
president lied in both the Jones case and before the grand jury, but
argued that those offenses are not impeachable. If the committee were
to adopt that position, however, it would create a double standard
that places the president above the law.

Virtually every public official in America, including our
nation's governors, and virtually everyone in private employment,
would lose their job if they committed perjury or obstructed justice.
In fact, many already have. We have had before the committee average
Americans who have suffered these consequences and even incarceration
because they committed perjury. And as more than one witness
testified before this committee, a person with those charges against
them would not even be nominated for a position in state or federal
government.

If we truly respect the presidency, we cannot allow the president
to be above the law. Millions of law-abiding Americans from all walks
of life, including my constituents, put in an honest day's work,
follow the rules and struggle to teach their children respect for the
law and the importance of integrity. When a factory worker or a
medical doctor or a retiree breaks the law, they do so with the
knowledge that they are not above the law.

This same principle must also apply to the most powerful and
privileged in our nation, including the president of the United
States. To lose this principle devastates a legacy entrusted to us by
our founding fathers and protected for us by generations of American
families.

Some of my colleagues have decided that a resolution of censure
is the only appropriate remedy for the president's actions. Their
resolution admits that the president made false statements concerning
his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate and wrongly took steps to
delay discovery of the truth.

For those who might support this resolution, I would like to
raise two key points. First, censure would set a dangerous precedent
without foundation in the Constitution. Second, if you truly believe
the allegations contained in the censure resolution, how can you not
vote to impeach? The evidence against the president shows clearly and
convincingly that he committed perjury and obstructed justice. And
the consequences of ignoring the facts in this case for simple
political expediency or of adopting an unconstitutional and
ineffective censure resolution far outweigh the consequences of moving
forward.

I have a constitutional duty to follow the truth wherever it
leads. The truth in this case leads me to believe that the president
knowingly engaged in a calculated pattern of lies, deceit and delay in
order to mislead the American people, impede the search for truth,
deny the right of his accuser to have her day in court, and protect
himself from criminal prosecution. Therefore, I have no alternative
but to support articles of impeachment against President Clinton.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the way in which you
have conducted this inquiry. It has not been easy. Your fairness and
dedication to duty has been rewarded by personal attacks from the
White House. Throughout this process you have remained faithful to
your oath of office and to the Constitution. That is what history
will remember, and that is what each of us should strive to follow.
When called to duty, you rose to the occasion, and we thank you.

The decision I have reached, while a sobering one, is, I believe,
also the correct one. I have heard from many constituents who are
deeply concerned that action be taken in this matter, and I appreciate
them sharing their thoughts. One of those constituents is a 12-year-
old sixth grade student from Linkhorn (sp) Middle School in Lynchburg,
Virginia named Paul Inge (sp).

He recently wrote, "I am a Boy Scout who is concerned about the
leadership of the president of the United States of America. It is my
understanding that other ordinary citizens who lie under oath are
prosecuted. The president should not be any different. He should
also have to obey the laws. As a Boy Scout, I have learned that
persons of good character are trustworthy and obedient. I feel that
the character of the president should be at least as good as the
leaders that I follow in my local troop and community. Is this too
much to ask of our country's leaders?"

The precious legacy entrusted to us by our founders and our
constituents is a nation dedicated to the ideal of freedom and
equality for all her people. This committee must decide whether we
will maintain our commitment to the rule of law and pass this precious
legacy to our children and grandchildren, or whether we will bow to
the political pressure for the sake of convenience or expediency.
Much of our hopes and dreams for our children, like Paul Inge, and for
the integrity of our nation, depends on the answer to that question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HYDE: Thank you very much for your very generous remarks.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren.